The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KeepCommentI find it hard to accept this nomination has been done in good faith given the history of the OP with the author of this article
Martinvl. Both editors have received sanction for disruption on metrication related articles. I also note there has been a steady degradation of the article and as originally written contained a great deal of relevant and useful information.I have struck my original comment following discussion with the nominator. Nonetheless, I would still argue keep as this is a relevant fork, since information related to transportation and metrication does warrant it's own article IMHO. WCMemail16:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Wee Curry Monster: The article was bad from day 1. Detailed edit summaries explain the reasons for any removals I made, and there has been plenty of time since then to question them or add new content. --
DeFacto (
talk).
17:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I can see the rationale for an article of this nature but on reflection, per Otr500, starting over from scratch may well be a better option. As such, withdrawn my keep comment. WCMemail14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem at the time I nominated this article to AFD before was that the topic did not meet
WP:GNG. While there were lots of sources they were practically all primary sources (whereas
WP:GNG in its definitions requires secondary sources).
WP:PSTS is clear that we cannot interpret primary sources, but this article broke that rule in practically every sourced sentence.
So far as I can see none of the issues have been fundamentally resolved since then. The article still relies principally on primary sources and includes very few secondary sources. Recent efforts to remove the OR have also got rid of most of the content, and we have no way of replacing it in a policy-compliant way - because the article still fails
WP:GNG.
Delete. Per nom. Article been around for a long while now and still not escaped OR (and in a poor state). The "Background" is a redo of the main Metrication WP article. The "Road" is tiny (and captured in Metrication). The "Rail" is about "Pan-European signalling systems", which really forms the bulk of text in this article and is not per-se exclusively about Metrification. Situation unlikely to change and no evidence that this is a standalone topic from the main
Metrication in the United Kingdom. At minimum a WP:NUKEIT, but I think this topic is also poorly formed, hence delete.
Britishfinance (
talk)
01:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KeepCommentI find it hard to accept this nomination has been done in good faith given the history of the OP with the author of this article
Martinvl. Both editors have received sanction for disruption on metrication related articles. I also note there has been a steady degradation of the article and as originally written contained a great deal of relevant and useful information.I have struck my original comment following discussion with the nominator. Nonetheless, I would still argue keep as this is a relevant fork, since information related to transportation and metrication does warrant it's own article IMHO. WCMemail16:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Wee Curry Monster: The article was bad from day 1. Detailed edit summaries explain the reasons for any removals I made, and there has been plenty of time since then to question them or add new content. --
DeFacto (
talk).
17:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I can see the rationale for an article of this nature but on reflection, per Otr500, starting over from scratch may well be a better option. As such, withdrawn my keep comment. WCMemail14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem at the time I nominated this article to AFD before was that the topic did not meet
WP:GNG. While there were lots of sources they were practically all primary sources (whereas
WP:GNG in its definitions requires secondary sources).
WP:PSTS is clear that we cannot interpret primary sources, but this article broke that rule in practically every sourced sentence.
So far as I can see none of the issues have been fundamentally resolved since then. The article still relies principally on primary sources and includes very few secondary sources. Recent efforts to remove the OR have also got rid of most of the content, and we have no way of replacing it in a policy-compliant way - because the article still fails
WP:GNG.
Delete. Per nom. Article been around for a long while now and still not escaped OR (and in a poor state). The "Background" is a redo of the main Metrication WP article. The "Road" is tiny (and captured in Metrication). The "Rail" is about "Pan-European signalling systems", which really forms the bulk of text in this article and is not per-se exclusively about Metrification. Situation unlikely to change and no evidence that this is a standalone topic from the main
Metrication in the United Kingdom. At minimum a WP:NUKEIT, but I think this topic is also poorly formed, hence delete.
Britishfinance (
talk)
01:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.